Costumes Review and More

Reviews

Long known in some of the worst dubs I've ever seen, the 1933 Paramount all star cast production of "Alice in Wonderland" has now been issued on an 'official' DVD. Well, what we have here, though slightly better than the best video dub I've seen, remains disappointing. I suspect the quality is far inferior to the original nitrate copy currently residing in the UCLA Film Archive vaults. Given the brilliant DVD issues we have seen of many Paramount films from around this period - notably Lubitsch's "Trouble in Paradise" - it's a great shame this 1933 Alice must continue to linger in the shadows, its eccentric joys and charming creations suppressed under cloudly indistinct images. Some of the other reviewers here seem to be laboring under the impression that UCLA does not offer any of their holdings for use in DVDs. That's not quite correct. A brilliant copy of some Columbia films - too often spoiled by dreadful prints - have hit the marketplace - a UCLA archive copy of "His Girl Friday" was offered, and earlier on Laserdisc another UCLA Archives print was used for "My Sister Eileen". To finally answer the problem of the film's length: UCLA holds the entire Paramount studio collection of earlier films, starting with before the coming of sound. The archives' 16mm safety dub of 2 reels (3200 ft.) of Alice in Wonderland, certainly taken from their original studio print, times out at 76 minutes. There may indeed be a longer unedited version, but UCLA does not appear to possess it. It's also interesting that the safety print condition notes 'Scratches." Another 1 reel safety print, also in 16mm, exists as well. The original studio copy the archives owns is 4 reels on 35 mm nitrate print, estimated at 8000 ft. Anyone wishing to further pursue this can check with the UCLA Film Archives and use the number assigned to the studio print, M3873.

This has to be one of the best versions of ALICE that I've ever seen. The budget for this movie must have been huge. The effects in the movie look good even today and this was filmed in '33. The people who did the makeup and props brought John Tenniels illustrations to life. Every character looks exactly as they were originally drawn. This movie also stands out because it is both ALICE IN WONDERLAND & THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS mixed together without any conflicts to the screenplay. I can't believe that this movie was not shown more often and brought to DVD alot sooner. It's got the same quality and appeal that THE WIZARD OF OZ has, with the exception that it's in black & white. For anyone who is an ALICE fan or to those who like a fun family movie from early Hollywood check this one out, you won't be disappointed.

I first encountered this version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND back in the early 1960s when I was home from school recovering from a bad cold. In those days your local TV station would show morning movies before the game shows started. I only saw it that one time until many years later but I never forgot some of the imagery. It may not be Lewis Carroll's ALICE (no movie ever is) but it does create a world of its own which is its strongest selling point. It actually plays better today than in 1933 for with few exceptions (W.C. Fields, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper), no one remembers the other stars (aside from Charlotte Henry best known as Bo-Peep in Laurel & Hardy's BABES IN TOYLAND) and so they can be viewed as characters not stars under heavy make-up. The adaptation by Joseph L. Mankiewicz retains most of Carroll's original dialogue and is more THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS than ALICE. It flows very nicely between the two books and at 77 minutes seems just right. As has been noted elsewhere the film was originally 90 minutes but the missing footage deals with the real world so it probably isn't missed too badly. The question is why was it cut. For reasons that have never been fully explained or understood, the film has been out of circulation for years (even from TV showings) and was never officially released until now to cash in on the Tim Burton adaptation (just as Sherlock Holmes movies have reappeared in time for Robert Downey Jr's version). That's how the game is played. The cover has even been colorized to hide the fact from most people that the film is in black & white. The production design by the legendary William Cameron Menzies uses black and white to good advantage as does Bert Glennon's photography so fortunately no attempt was made to colorize the film for this release. In fact Universal, who now owns the rights to the film, has made no attempt to do much of anything with this release which is a real shame. I'm sure there are copyright issues involved but it would have been nice to have the Betty Boop cartoon BETTY IN BLUNDERLAND as an added bonus as well as production stills or commentary from someone who admires the film. Although not a perfect transfer, it is light years away from the bootleg and gray market copies available until now and for that I am thankful. Maybe someday it will get the royal treatment it deserves.

I have vague memories (I think) of seeing this on TV as a kid. It's something of a holy grail to nostalgia buffs of course given that nearly every Paramount star who was anybody in 1933 - including most famously Cary Grant, W.C. Fields and Gary Cooper - appears in it, and it's never been on video before. Its reputation isn't all that great though, and the film was shorn of about 15 minutes on reissues which apparently (see below) have been lost for good. So it was with a bit of trepidation that I, inveterate Alice-lover, took a gander. I needn't have worried. Sure, this suffers from all of the defects one would expect of such a lavish star-vehicle from the day - too much rushing through scenes (even at its original 90 minutes, trying to shunt together big hunks of both "Alice" and "Through the Looking Glass" is going to feel thin), an Alice (Charlotte Henry) who is both too old and just not expressive enough for the part, a director (Norman Z. McLeod) sometimes content to point-and-shoot, and some celeb bits (Cary Grant as the Mock Turtle in particular) that just aren't that great or are too short. And this is one of those rare black and white films where I actually thought more than once while watching "gee, I wish this had been in color". Somehow "Alice" more than almost any classic story, seems to demand a riotous palette of hues. BUT the sets and art direction - supervised by an uncredited William Cameron Menzies, one of the greatest art directors/production designers of all time but listed here only as co-screenwriter - is truly wonderful, capturing at times the surrealism and madness of the tale with an expressionist's palate of odd shapes and complex backgrounds. Some of the special effects are really excellent as well and seem pretty advanced for the year - the raven flying over Tweedledee and Tweedledum for example, and the flying effects for Alice. And though as I said, the conflation of the two books makes for a dash-through-it-quick-as-you-can feeling to things, the way in which McLeod, Menzies and the rest of the team actually constructed the film is pretty ingenious: it starts with Alice going into Looking-Glass world, rescuing the chess pieces from the fire, then running out of the house and following the rabbit at which point it follows mostly the events of "Wonderland" for 45 minutes or so, only to go back into "Looking Glass" territory smoothly towards the finish. But the primary joy is in the cast; as mentioned I have some issues, but on the whole I really enjoyed most of the stars, and it seems like many of the more important ones did get into the swing of things. Edna Mae Oliver is delightfully goofy and sly as the Red Queen, Fields is perfect as Humpty-Dumpty, Edward Everett Horton silly but tending towards dangerous as the Mad Hatter, and most of the rest of the names including Sterling Holloway and Jack Oakie seem to be enjoying themselves. Top honors in the end have to go to Gary Cooper as the White Knight - frail, naive, joking, crazy, bumbling, and entirely sympathetic. He dominates the screen and comes the closest I think to being a "real" person - though in the end he's not around long enough to be any more than another crazy dream. SUMMARY: though this is easily the best "faithful" Alice adaptation I've seen - not that most are that good, mind you - I can't quite give it the top rating, despite the excitement that I felt for it and my general pleasure at the film itself, and that is due almost entirely to the way Universal has handled this release. Though the film doesn't look and sound bad, it isn't in terrific shape either - there are occasional tear lines in the frame and more dirt and speckling than there ought to be, if the film were given much restoration effort. The DVD is completely bare-bones, no extras whatsoever - not even a trailer - and given that it is in fact the shorter reissue, it would be nice to at least be given some information as to why we're getting the shorter version, and what may have happened to the missing footage. I can well understand the anger of some of the reviewers at the cheap way this was put out, timed for the release of the new Tim Burton film and seemingly marketed to capitalize on that - but not to really cater to the collectors who have long waited for it. Still, a mediocre release of a formerly missing classic is better than nothing, and I think there are enough positives to be accentuated for me to recommend this. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to email Universal with any dissatisfaction you might feel as to the quality of the product. While this "Alice" may not be a masterpiece, it certainly deserved better treatment than this, after 77 years.

other reviewers have mentioned it; i'll second them: THIS IS THE EDITED 77-minute version (single disc, universal release, upc# 025195053563, just so we're all clear on that); NOT the full 90 minute original. transfer quality and sound are both 'okay.' not great, not poor - just okay. single disc, extremely bare bones packaging. NO special features whatsoever. yet another missed opportunity in the mishandling of a classic film. if you LOVE this version of the story, buy it. if you're a die-hard alice/carroll fan, buy it. if you absolutely NEED everything cary grant, gary cooper or w.c. fields (or even edward everett horton, baby leroy, or sterling holloway) ever attached their names to, buy it. or you could wait until a miracle occurs and a studio somewhere starts to take pride in its back catalogue, releasing films uncut, unedited (hays code cuts are still in effect, really? in THIS day and age?!), with at least SOME minimal effort put into production... but i wouldn't hold my breath. three stars as-is, because the movie, weird as it is, cut-up as this version is, does radiate a certain charm (and this is, in all likelihood, the ONLY version we're gonna get); otherwise, i'd give it a pass.

Reviews

for me Spiderman is similar to Superman. both hold up the values that the USA was founded on in 1776 ( almost 235 years ago )

I really enjoyed this movie it had him against 3 villians tons of good action scenes, good story twist.(SPOILER ALERT) He fights against his friend Harry(new goblin) seeking revenge on his friend for murdering his father, the sandman (Flint Marko) who is a convict who escapes from prison for the murder of Ben Parker (Peters uncle) which is revealed that he was the one who killed his uncle instead of his partner and last but not least the evil alien symbiote Venom which it lands on earth and sneaks a ride on Peters scooter to invade his body and reveals Peters darkside but eventually Peter is able to fight the symbiote and remove it. It starts to take over Eddie Brock which he starts to use his new evil power to kill Peter for humiliating him. This spider man movie was really good but I wish they could of had venom more screen time. This upcoming reboot is a very stupid idea, I don't know why they are starting the series over, i really enjoyed this cast and all the sequels. Tobey Maguire was a perfect spider man. I don't know who they will pick again and what the plot and the villians will be. Lets boycott this reboot it doesn't need one.

Rented Spider-Man 3 this weekend. Spider-man 3 ties up the loose ends from the first two Spider-man movies. Overall I found it to be a stronger sequel than Spider-man 2.

I got this blu Ray used and it was in awesome condition and came quickly

Loved this movie before I saw it on blu-ray, loved it even more after viewing it on blu-ray.

Reviews

for me Spiderman is similar to Superman. both hold up the values that the USA was founded on in 1776 ( almost 235 years ago )

I really enjoyed this movie it had him against 3 villians tons of good action scenes, good story twist.(SPOILER ALERT) He fights against his friend Harry(new goblin) seeking revenge on his friend for murdering his father, the sandman (Flint Marko) who is a convict who escapes from prison for the murder of Ben Parker (Peters uncle) which is revealed that he was the one who killed his uncle instead of his partner and last but not least the evil alien symbiote Venom which it lands on earth and sneaks a ride on Peters scooter to invade his body and reveals Peters darkside but eventually Peter is able to fight the symbiote and remove it. It starts to take over Eddie Brock which he starts to use his new evil power to kill Peter for humiliating him. This spider man movie was really good but I wish they could of had venom more screen time. This upcoming reboot is a very stupid idea, I don't know why they are starting the series over, i really enjoyed this cast and all the sequels. Tobey Maguire was a perfect spider man. I don't know who they will pick again and what the plot and the villians will be. Lets boycott this reboot it doesn't need one.

Rented Spider-Man 3 this weekend. Spider-man 3 ties up the loose ends from the first two Spider-man movies. Overall I found it to be a stronger sequel than Spider-man 2.

I got this blu Ray used and it was in awesome condition and came quickly

Loved this movie before I saw it on blu-ray, loved it even more after viewing it on blu-ray.